Hi,

I have a customer whose current child support assessment is £45 per week and similar amount is being recovered for arrears through attachment of earnings, his wage after the deductions is approximately £132 per week. This is impairing his ability to meet his priority expenditure, such as rent, council tax and utility bills. He has rent arrears of almost a £1000 and at risk of homelessness.

I telephoned the CSA and asked that the rate of recovery for arrears be reduced in view of customer's financial difficulties. They would not budge.

I hear from colleagues that there is not very much that can be done. Surely there must be some policy in place to address cases of financial hardship but I'm unable to find anything helpful.

Any suggestions would be gratefully recievd.

When someone making payments to the CSA is assessed for HB/CTB, they are treated as if they were receiving the money that the CSA has taken through attachment of earnings. This is monstrously unfair. Does anyone know how the government justifies this policy?

Sorry this is not a suggestion to help your client - but it does help to explain why he is left with so little to pay his bills.

Why is it unfair?

If someone is paying the amount separately and not through attachment to earnings it is not disregarded but they still don't have the money in their pocket. Why should people having a deduction from earnings be treated any differently to them?

because they don't ahve the money available to pay the rent that HB assume they have, and therefore will be at greater risk of lsoing their home, possibly thereafter their job, and then be unable to pay any maintenance anyway.

i'm the first to say people should pay for their children, but not to the extent that they are assumed to have income available for themselves that they in fact don't have as it is being spent to maintain their children....

You beat me to the reply, Claire. I fully agree with you.

Another way to look at the unfairness is to compare how HB treats resident and non-resident parents. The non-resident parent who is paying maintenance, whether directly or by attachment of earnings, is regarded as having the money that has gone on maintenance also available to pay the rent. The resident parent gets an addition to the HB applicable amount for each dependent child, which is a recognition of the costs to the household of those children. Still looks unfair to the non-res parent to me!

I'm confused. Why are they at a greater risk of losing their home than someone who is not having the payments made directly from their wages?

I understand your argument that they do not have the money but that also applies to people who don't make the payments in that way. I have a problem with people making payments this way being treated differently to other people.

jackson

I'm not quite clear what your point is. The problem here seems to me to be that the non-resident parent is not only paying £45 p wk in maintenance, but also another £45 p wk off arrears by attachment of earnings. I very much doubt whether you will find many (if any) non-residents voluntarily paying this amount of arrears on top of the ongoing payment.

I don't know what criteria CSA uses for assessing the amount of the arrears payment but it does appear that the result in this case is excessive. Is there any appeal mechanism within CSA that could be used, or would involvement of the local MP be worthwhile?

"I understand your argument that they do not have the money but that also applies to people who don't make the payments in that way. I have a problem with people making payments this way being treated differently to other people. "

my view is that if people don't have £x they shouldn't be treated as having £x in this type of situation. it's not has if the person is p***ing it against the wall in which case would be own fault had no money; person is here being forced ot pay maintenance and arrears of maintenance under legislation, and then other legislation says he has to be assumed to be NOT paying that maintenance? phoey. the benefits system is meant to support people on low pay, not force them out onto the streets!

Agree with you Claire - now BREATHE!!!!!!

oh, and i'd take teh same view if the person was paying maintenance voluntarily, without the need for CSA invovlement (if that's even allowed these days...)

I agree with Jackson. If people paying by direct deductions from wages had that money ignored then, in effect, the HB dept would be paying a good proportion of their maintenance assessment; a benefit that people paying in other ways would not have. I believe this was the point being made...?

We see similiar things all the time with automatic deductions from benefits and wages. The only exception I can think of is tax credits where the law specifies for HB that the amount counted is the amount actually received - which means that HB depts are, in effect, repaying part of the tax credit overpayment.

I think the original post holds the answer. I don't know what rules are in place in these circumstances, but I would be confident of getting some result through either statutory provisions or complaints, using HRA if necessary.